Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Committee (2nd Day)

Good afternoon, my Lords. I remind the Committee that, as usual, if there is a Division in the Chamber the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes from the sound of the Division Bells—and it seems very likely that that will happen at least once. Clause 4: Commissioner’s functions in relation to general service welfare Amendment 13

Moved by

13: Clause 4, page 4, line 18, leave out from “proposal” to end of line 19 and insert “at least seven days before the Commissioner intends to exercise the power under subsection (1).” Member's explanatory statement This amendment provides that the Commissioner must give the Secretary of State a minimum of seven days’ notice before entering service premises.

My Lords, it is a pleasure to join you all this afternoon on day two of Committee on the Bill. I should explain that last Wednesday, consideration of an important non-defence Bill in the Chamber precluded me from attending Grand Committee, so it is a particular pleasure to be able to be here this afternoon. In speaking to Amendment 13, in my name, I will speak to the other amendments in the group. At Second Reading, I raised the extent to which, with reference to access to premises, powers seem to have leached away from the Secretary of State and transferred excessively to the commissioner. I am absolutely satisfied that this is for no malign reason at all—it is just a consequence of drafting. I was encouraged by other contributions at Second Reading that I had support for my concerns. The amendments in my name, Amendments 13, 14 and 15, simply attempt to restore control to the Secretary of State. I freely admit that I may not have found the perfect solution to this, but I thought it would be helpful to have a debate, so that the noble Lord the Minister can understand the spectrum of views. Without amendment, under the Bill the commissioner can, in the United Kingdom, access MoD premises without the Secretary of State being aware. That is not acceptable, and it raises two issues. As a matter of principle, is that really the position we want to put the Secretary of State for Defence into? Just think of the wide range of premises within the MoD, some at the top levels of security protection. Much more practically, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, pointed out at Second Reading, it is not only the location of the premises which matters but the activity taking place within them. As he observed, a base commander has overall responsibility for security, and I am afraid that entirely predictable is a clash of wills between the commissioner who seeks entry to a premises, and the base commander who says, “No, I am denying entry”. That is not sustainable. My amendments may be clumsy, but I have restored power to the Secretary of State, who must have notice of intended access and must then inform the commanding officer of the relevant premises of the commissioner’s intended visit. I have provided for seven days’ notice, unless evidence is in danger of being lost or there is continuing risk to personnel using the premises. But in that event the commissioner must still intimate in writing to the Secretary of State why he is not giving notice; then, at least the Secretary of State will have some idea of what is going on. The important lens through which to look at this is defence and security and the rightful overall authority of the Secretary of State, and I feel that the Bill has not got that balance quite right. I look forward to the debate, and particularly to the response from the noble Lord the Minister, who may very well want to take away what he hears today and reflect upon these contributions. I beg to move.

My Lords, I share the concern, expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, that lies behind the amendments, although these particular ones do not in fact capture, in my view, the solution to the problem. The problem is that the nature of classified locations varies. There will be some sites to which the Armed Forces commissioner would not, presumably, be denied access entirely. However, many sites have large areas that will be, and should be, open to the commissioner, but within which there are particular discrete locations where classified activity is conducted, to which he or she should not be admitted. The Minister of Defence and the Secretary of State may well draw up a list, as was intended, of classified locations. Although the list will be classified and therefore will not be in secondary legislation, as the Minister has pointed out, it will deny the commissioner access to those sites. But the problem with lists is that they are seldom comprehensive and seldom up to date. We are talking about a very large span of estate with a very large spread of activities. The idea that such a list can be kept up to the minute will involve, first, a huge bureaucratic effort and, secondly, will almost certainly be doomed to failure. As the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, pointed out, it is the responsibility of local commanders to ensure that national security is preserved and that classified information is not available to those who should not have access to it. Therefore, it seems to me that there is only one sensible answer to this conundrum: for the Bill to provide commanding officers with the power in the last resort to deny the commissioner access to specific locations on the grounds that they contain classified activities or classified material. The commanding officer should of course then be required to justify themselves through the chain of command to the Secretary of State. But if we do not provide them with that backstop authority, we are, frankly, hanging local commanders out to dry with the legislation as it now stands. These amendments do not provide the solution that I see as necessary, but can the Minister undertake today to take away these very real and important concerns and consider how they might be addressed before we get to Report? I repeat what I have said earlier: I entirely understand that such conflicts are likely to be very rare. The commissioner is going to be engaged in looking at service accommodation and other general conditions of service, so most of the time they will not be seeking access to such sites. But it is entirely conceivable that he or she will need such access, particularly if they are considering thematic issues to do with working conditions—and just once is once too many when it comes to national security. I ask the Minister to reflect on this, and perhaps we can have some discussions outside Committee before we get to Report.

My Lords, I shall speak very briefly to this set of amendments, really to provide some balance, because I feel that we should hear both sides of the argument. The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, in introducing these amendments, said that the commissioner should not be visiting without the Secretary of State being aware, and I entirely agree with that. Obviously, the Secretary of State is the person with political responsibility, who needs to know what is going on and whether the commissioner has identified a potential problem. However, not being aware is not the same as having seven days’ notice. There is a very large gap between those two things. What we have just heard from the noble and gallant Lord about the commanding officer having the right to deny access is, I am aware, not directly in line with these amendments. However, on day one in Committee we talked about how the ombudsman, as structured, has not worked and has not had sufficient powers. We have to be careful to make sure that we are not putting a commissioner in the same position here. We have to be realistic: there may be a systemic issue, such as those we talked about on the previous day in Committee, and a concern about the treatment of female service people. We might hope that a commander would always want that issue to be exposed and understood, but we cannot guarantee that, and it is really important that we do not disempower the commissioner with changes to this Bill before they are even created and put in place.

My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, back to her place today; I know she was busy elsewhere in the House of Lords on our first day. It is welcome to see her here. Both she and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, asked about the opportunity to discuss the points that have been made, and we can of course meet between Committee and Report to do so. I can promise the meeting, but I cannot promise the outcome. To be frank, as noble Lords will know, that is how we in this House conduct business, improve legislation and achieve the objective that we all want: the commissioner being effective and having the appropriate powers to do the task they undertake. As noble Lords know, I like to make some general remarks before making formal points; I hope that is helpful to the Committee. I understand the noble Baroness’s point about the balance between the powers of the Secretary of State and of the commissioner, and I will say something about that. We have tried very hard to balance those powers. I also hear the point made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, about the importance of national security. There may be elements of a particular base that one would expect the commissioner to be precluded from visiting for national security reasons, even if it is not the whole base; there is also the role of the commanding officer to consider. On the question of intention, if we take the example of a normal decision of the commissioner to visit a base, the noble Baroness and the noble and gallant Lord will see that there is a requirement in the Bill for the commissioner to notify the Secretary of State that they are visiting a particular base: “If the Commissioner proposes to exercise the power under subsection (1), the Commissioner must give the Secretary of State notice of the proposal within such period before exercising the power as the Commissioner considers appropriate”. The noble Baroness’s amendment would require that that happen at least seven days before the commissioner intends to exercise the power. The expectation would be that the Secretary of State would then tell the commanding officer that such a visit was to take place. However, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, pointed out, under the Bill a confidential list will be drawn up saying where the Secretary of State believes it inappropriate for the commissioner to visit because of national security reasons. That will be shared with the commissioner, although it will remain confidential. But we will take up the point made by the noble and gallant Lord about how that will work with a base only a small part of which may be subject to national security concerns.

The Minister said that, ordinarily, the commissioner will give notice to the Secretary of State. But equally—this comes back to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle—we know that, in order to be truly effective, in some circumstances the Armed Forces commissioner will need to give little or no notice. That is fine because that helps the effectiveness of the commissioner, but a commanding officer is then exposed to the possibility of the commissioner wanting access to a site to which he or she should not properly be allowed access, because of national security. So, in proposing that the commanding officer have a backstop ability to deny access, we are seeking to improve the power and authority of the commissioner, because that then reduces the need for undue notice on their behalf.

16:00:00

I understand that, and I will come to the “no notice” point in a moment. I was simply pointing out to the Committee that, as the Bill stands, new Section 340IB(3) states: “If the Commissioner proposes to exercise the power under subsection (1), the Commissioner must give the Secretary of State notice”. The expectation is that the Secretary of State would then tell the commanding officer; however, sites can be excluded on national security grounds because a list will have been drawn up. But new Section 340IB(4) states: “Subsection (3) does not apply, so far as relating to service premises in the United Kingdom”— this goes to the point the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, made— “if the Commissioner considers that giving notice would defeat the object of exercising the power”. As I say, in all this there is a balance to be struck between notifying the Secretary of State; the Secretary of State notifying the commissioner; the ability, however, to have “no notice” visits; and alongside that protecting national security and indeed personal safety. The noble and gallant Lord made the important point that you might want to protect an entire base or facility, and perhaps everyone would be more open to understanding why that base is excluded. But he also pointed out that it may be a question of protecting just part of the base, and even a commanding officer might not know some of the things going on there. So he raises an issue which we will need to come back to between Committee and Report, because it is important and we need to consider it. I hope that, in addressing the issues and pointing out the various pathways to a visit by the commissioner—or not—I have shown that we are trying to balance the various demands in order to make the commissioner’s visits effective, to maintain national security, and to give no notice where appropriate, while being fair to the bases being visited. I have tried to answer noble Lords’ specific questions, and I hope that those remarks are helpful. I will just read the formal points into the record, because I think that is helpful. On Amendments 13, 14 and 15 and the commissioner’s power of access to service premises, I thank again the noble Baroness for her characteristically thoughtful consideration of this issue, and indeed I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup. As we have just seen, one of the challenges when drafting the Bill was ensuring that the correct balance was struck between the independence and power of the Armed Forces commissioner on one hand, and the power of the Secretary of State, notably to protect the interests of national security and the safety of individuals, on the other. Although the commissioner has the power to enter service premises and prepare independent reports and recommendations, this is balanced with the Secretary of State’s ability to prevent the exercise of these powers in the interests of national security and personal safety, thus ensuring proper and responsible regard to delicate security issues surrounding defence premises. We believe that the Bill achieves this balance, and that to provide more prescriptive restrictions, such as the ones contained in the proposed amendments, may risk offsetting it. We must also remember that much of the commissioner’s remit as set out in Clause 4 is solely focused on the general welfare of service persons and their families. The exercise of these powers can only be in pursuit of this issue. It is important that we keep that in mind when considering the role of the Secretary of State in restricting their powers. In its current form, the Bill grants the commissioner discretion as to how much notice to give service premises ahead of the commissioner’s proposed visit. This could be within seven days, as the noble Baroness suggests, or indeed longer, and we anticipate that that will be the case for the vast majority of the time. Creating a legal obligation on the Secretary of State to notify the commanding officer of each service premises that the commissioner has given notice of a proposed visit could risk creating a substantial administrative burden on the Secretary of State. It could also prove to be complex, given the multitude of service premises and personnel involved. This additional requirement could frustrate and delay the commissioner, making it harder for them to fulfil one of the most crucial elements of their role: to meet with our Armed Forces and their families in a timely way and to understand the realities of service life. However, we would expect the Secretary of State’s office to inform the relevant commanding officer when they are informed of an impending visit, as I mentioned to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup. Further, in its current form, the Bill deliberately provides that it is up to the judgment of the commissioner as to when giving notice would defeat the object of exercising their power of entry to service premises. Removing this and replacing it with two prescriptive circumstances when the commissioner would be able to conduct no-notice visits risks inadvertently precluding circumstances when no-notice visits would be appropriate. Furthermore, to place a legal obligation on the commissioner to inform the Secretary of State of all instances where and reasons for which they have exercised their discretion not to give notice of planned entry to a service premise would, again, add an administrative burden and could significantly infringe upon their independence. However, I appreciate the noble Baroness’s concern that it would appear difficult for the Secretary of State to prevent the exercise of powers under subsection (1) of new Section 340IB, proposed by Clause 4(2) of the Bill, on national security grounds should the commissioner decide that a no-notice visit was appropriate. I assure the noble Baroness that we are working closely with partners in defence and across government to understand areas where the Secretary of State—and, where appropriate, the Foreign or Home Secretary—may wish pre-emptively to exercise the restriction power. For example, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, said, access to certain parts of sites or the ability to take documents from certain terminals may be restricted. Given its sensitive nature, any such list will be a classified document; however, the sites in question and the commissioner would be aware of this in advance. We will continue to engage with the relevant agencies during implementation. This will be accompanied by a communication and engagement campaign across defence to ensure that sites and personnel are aware of the commissioner and their remit. However, should the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, find it useful, I would welcome meetings with them to discuss this and other matters of national security in relation to the commissioner; that is an open invite to other noble Lords, should they also wish to attend. I hope that this provides the necessary reassurance to the noble Baroness. On these grounds, I ask her to withdraw her amendment.

My Lords, not for the first time, a debate of brevity has actually been one of substance. I am grateful to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for their contributions; I am also grateful to the Minister for his customary willingness to engage. What has emerged is a concern—I detect that there is some sympathy with it—that the Bill has not quite got the balance right. However, I think that it is possible to find a workable solution. As I listened to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, it occurred to me that, if we are all trying to be too clever—I simply tried to follow and work with the grain of how the Bill’s draftsmen approached these provisions—he may have a more elegant solution. The simplest thing may be to ask whether the Secretary of State really must be brought into this, because what matters is that national security is not compromised. I very much welcome the Minister’s invitation to meet before Report and would like to avail myself of that opportunity. I would be very surprised if we cannot find some pragmatic way to improve the Bill. It may be that, despite the noble and gallant Lord’s reservations about it, the list could well be a starting point in terms of reassurance that there are certain places that the commissioner will not be getting into. If we go back to the view of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, that we dislocate at our peril the commanding officer of a base who has overall responsibility in law for the security and safety of that base, that might be a worthwhile starting point, from which you then turn the process around. If the commissioner says, “I’m coming”, the commander of the base says, “Not tomorrow, but you can come on Thursday”, and the commissioner says, “No, I want to come tomorrow”, at that point perhaps the Secretary of State can be brought in. But it seems to me that the critical practical issues are: what is going on in a location at a particular time, and could national security be compromised? I am absolutely satisfied that there is an intelligent solution to be found. I would welcome the opportunity of a further discussion with the Minister, which I think colleagues who have contributed to the debate would find extremely helpful. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 13 in my name.

Amendment 13 withdrawn.

Amendments 14 and 15 not moved.

Amendment 16

Moved by

16: Clause 4, page 5, line 12, at end insert— “340IC Commissioner’s functions in relation to whistleblowing(1) The Commissioner may investigate any concern raised by a whistleblower of which the Commissioner becomes aware (whether because the whistleblower has contacted the Commissioner or for any other reason) but only if the whistleblower informs the Commissioner, before the beginning of the investigation, that he or she consents to an investigation taking place.(2) In deciding whether to investigate, the Commissioner must take into account the public interest.(3) The Commissioner must, when carrying out an investigation under this section, take all reasonable precautions to ensure the anonymity of the whistleblower.(4) For the purposes of this section, a person is a “whistleblower” if—(a) the person is, or was at any time, subject to service law,(b) the person raises a concern that is about another person subject to service law, and(c) the matter to which the concern relates is not about the conditions of service of persons subject to service law.”Member’s explanatory statement This amendment creates a new whistleblowing duty for the Commissioner, to ensure service personnel can raise concerns with anonymity.

My Lords, I am very grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich for putting his name to my Amendment 16. At Second Reading, I expressed my concern about the position of Jaysley Beck, who tragically took her own life in 2021. The coroner had recently published his findings, which made for grim reading. Since Jaysley’s death, many far-reaching changes and improvements have been made; I know that because the former Secretary of State Ben Wallace drove them through and, as a Minister, I supported him in every way I could. There is encouraging evidence that these changes are yielding results. For example, a number of instructors have been summarily dismissed for inappropriate sexual relationships with students, and I believe that there have been other dismissals of personnel from the Armed Forces for inappropriate behaviour. What was always much more difficult to assess was whether women were fearful to make a complaint in the first place for fear of prejudicing their careers. All the procedures, processes and structures in the world do not work if a scared woman feels unable to make the complaint in the first place. That, sadly, was the case for Jaysley Beck. I am concerned that women in our Armed Forces still feel inhibited from raising unacceptable behaviour. That cannot be tolerated; we need to plug that gap. We have to find a way of giving them a safe space so that they or their friends can let someone know what is going on. This proposal seems to dovetail perfectly with the creation of an Armed Forces commissioner and the ethos of that office. If whistleblowing cannot be accommodated within his independent office, I do not know where it can be. The amendment provides for the commissioner’s functions in the Bill to include investigating “any concern raised by a whistleblower”. I have tried to keep it as simple as possible. I am told that the virtue of whistleblowing is twofold. First, it provides that safe—and currently missing—space for someone to raise a concern. Secondly, it makes it more obvious more quickly if a problem is emerging in relation to a particular location or individual because, where there is a problem, concerns are likely to emerge in a cluster pattern. If we can plug this hole, using the creation of the new Armed Forces commissioner to such powerful effect, what a positive message that would be for the MoD. To have, under one umbrella, real action to support and help our Armed Forces women would be a striking, tangible piece of support. I feel very passionately about this: it is the missing piece of the jigsaw and I hope the Minister feels able to respond with some encouragement. I alert him that I am not giving up on this; I have got my teeth into it, and I will be back on Report. I beg to move.

My Lords, I will be very brief. I will reiterate to the Minister concerns I raised about an earlier amendment on recruits and their training. It is absolutely the case that in a military organisation, training must be tough and realistic—and, at times, discipline must be hard—if we are to have an effective fighting force. That means that there is a very clear risk that people could overstep the bounds. The risk is greater in that kind of environment than in most others; therefore, we have to be particularly vigilant in a military environment to guard against that.

16:15:00

I do not know whether the Minister is inclined to look with favour on the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie. However, I ask him—in his response and, subsequently, as the Bill goes through—to reflect on that point and to share with us the thoughts within the Ministry of Defence on how it will take this issue forward. As he and I have discussed and agreed, what really matters is changing behaviour on the ground. We have been singularly poor at doing that over many years, but that is what we need to change.

I will speak briefly to support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie. The German armed forces commissioner and her activities—on whose role, to a large degree, this new UK version is based—are covered by a country-wide whistleblowing Act, which was passed, I think, about three years ago. Looking at the example of Jaysley Beck, and trying to disentangle the long and unfortunate history of the way she was treated almost from the time she joined the Army Foundation College, would identify a whole series of points at which the whistle could have been blown in some way, shape or form but, for whatever reason, was not. This is not a case of a single occasion that was missed; there were multiple occasions involving a wide range of people, many of whom were old enough and senior enough to know better, and who, for whatever reason, did not take action. There are elements of human behaviour and psychology at play, including the way in which an organisation—which has huge pride in its history—reacts when it sees that the way it likes the outside world to believe it behaves, and how it holds its values, is not in fact the case. It is not always straightforward to work out exactly how to deal with that and how to flag up what is going on without being seen to be disloyal and without, in some way, being seen to be disrupting the organisation. Even if you feel that some of the values being demonstrated by the actual behaviour are wrong, they are almost trumped by the other values that one feels are more important, which are probably those that are discussed. The values that have gone wrong are the ones that are not being discussed or flagged up. That seems to be a root cause of why people are not coming forward and not talking. This is an important area. If the new Armed Forces commissioner is not the office that will look after this, who on earth will be? Who will defend the young girls like Jaysley Beck of the future—and, probably, of today? We need to get this right. I think that we would all welcome detailed discussions between now and Report, probably involving outside organisations that have been talking to some of the people who have suffered and who have not found ways of telling the chain of command or the outside world, in a way that was heard, what was going on. We really need to use the occasion of this Bill to try to get this right.

My Lords, what an important amendment the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, has brought forward. It has enabled the noble Baroness, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell, to make the comments they have. Let us start with the whole point of the commissioner. Obviously, we intend that the commissioner will have the power to investigate all the various issues and matters that noble Lords have brought forward in this Committee. The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, said, “I am not going to give up”. I say to her that she should not give up; nobody should give up. She was forthright on this matter when she was a Minister, as was the noble Earl, Lord Minto—indeed, as is every noble Lord in this Committee. When the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, had the very senior responsibilities he had in the military, he, like all of us, was trying to tackle this behaviour whereby some are tarnishing the reputation of the whole of our Armed Forces, which utterly unacceptable. I say to the noble Baroness that, as she will see as I make my remarks, some progress has been made as a result of the policies the previous Government pursued. As noble Lords know, I am a proud Labour politician, but I also admit where progress has previously been made. Is it good enough? Is it satisfactory? Of course not, as we have seen from Gunner Beck’s awful circumstances. The demands made by the noble Baroness, the noble Lord, and the noble and gallant Lord—indeed, by every single person in this Committee and beyond—have started to change the culture, which is ultimately what this is about. Will these things stop? I wish I could wave a magic wand and stop every case of bullying, sexism and misogyny, but what I do know is that, if the role of the commissioner is passed as it is now, it will, along with the other reforms that have taken place, help us deliver what we want to do. I absolutely take the point made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, about training new recruits and how we protect and develop them. I know there has been controversy about Harrogate, but it has taken really powerful action to try to deal with that. There have been other instances that we can all refer to. The noble Lord, Lord Russell, is right: this is about trying to generate confidence in people so that they feel they can come forward. There is also the countercultural point that people sometimes do not come forward not only because they are frightened but because that would somehow break the code—the unwritten rules. It is a nonsense. I used to teach, and you get this in schools, where people will not grass up others, even though they think what they did was wrong, because it somehow breaks a social norm. It is ridiculous and unacceptable, but each and every one of us knows that it is there. The real challenge for institutions, whether schools, offices or the Armed Forces, is how to generate that desire and will to come forward in what are sometimes difficult circumstances, because there is no excuse for that sort of behaviour. Let me turn to the amendment on whistleblowing. I assure noble Lords that the Ministry of Defence already has a comprehensive whistleblowing system, for military and civilians alike, and it includes robust policy, procedural investigation teams and a confidential hotline, so the amendment is not required. What is required is asking, “How do you get people to use it? How do you get people to come forward? How do you get people to have that confidence?” The noble Baroness, the noble Lord and others who went before them introduced lots of different hotlines, confidential arrangements and changes, but the things that we do not want to happen are still happening. It is about driving things through to bring about that change. As I pointed out to the noble Baroness, as a consequence of what has happened—noble Lords will know this if they have read the Defence Select Committee’s evidence from last week, and the First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir Ben Key, spoke about it in public, so it is out there—21 people have been discharged from Royal Navy service after a whistleblower flagged misconduct and inappropriate behaviour on board submarines. I repeat: the First Sea Lord said that, as a result of whistleblower policies currently in place, 21 people were dismissed from the Submarine Service. Is that a solution? Is that the end of the problem? Does that mean that nothing terrible is happening or will happen? Of course not, but it shows that we must drive people to have the confidence to use the various procedures and systems that are in place. Otherwise, you can change anything, but, if people do not have the confidence that the noble Lord, Lord Russell, spoke about, they will not use it and will not come forward. So, as I say, this shows that demonstrable action is being, and will be, taken against those who have transgressed when people are willing to come forward. The term “whistleblowing” can cover a range of issues much wider than general service welfare matters. The Government’s intention is to focus the commissioner’s remit on service welfare matters. However, I can further reassure your Lordships that nothing in the Bill precludes anyone from raising a general service welfare issue with the commissioner anonymously; nor does it prevent the commissioner acting on that information. On maintaining anonymity, for all general service welfare matters raised with the commissioner, there is no obligation imposed by the Bill to disclose the identity of any individuals. Indeed, all defence personnel are protected in relation to whistleblowing under the Ministry of Defence’s “raising a concern” policy. I hope that what I have said about anonymity, whistleblowing and some of the things that are starting to change means that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment, but, again, I would be happy to discuss any of this with her—indeed, with any noble Lord—because it is so important. It seems to me that the real challenge for us is around how we can give people, whether they are recruits or people who have been serving for a considerable period of time, the confidence and willingness to come forward and use the measures that are there. Knowing that they can do that both anonymously and in a way in which they will be treated with respect, seems to me the crucial part because, if that does not change, we can change the system but it will not actually deliver the result that we would all want. We are united in our desire to do something about that. I look forward to the noble Baroness—along with the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup—continuing to demand better of the system because that is what we all want to achieve and what we all want to happen. What is still happening is unacceptable; we want, and are determined, to do something about that. We think that the commissioner will help in this regard.

My Lords, again, this has been a short but very substantial debate. I thank the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell, for their contributions—and, indeed, the Minister for his response. What is really encouraging is the unanimity of view that we can keep doing better. I am grateful to the Minister for his observations about the previous Government. From my engagement with him when he was the opposition spokesman on defence, I know how encouraging and supportive he was as we tried to bring forward much-needed change.

The Division Bells are ringing. Does the noble Baroness have much more that she intends to say? Would she prefer to return after the Division?

It might be as well to adjourn for the Division.

16:29:00

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

16:38:00

I will try to be as brief as possible. I had thanked the Minister for his kind remarks about the previous Government. It is the case that incredible progress has been made. As I listened to the contributions, I was struck by two things. The noble Lord, Lord Russell, gave a realistic assessment of what we are dealing with on the ground at the moment. I said in my introductory remarks that we have to change culture, attitudes and behaviour, and that we will need more training—all of that—but, as we speak, there is probably a terrified young woman somewhere on an Armed Forces base who has been treated inappropriately and does not know what to do. I do not think that we can provide too many ventilation shafts, conduits or means for that young person, whoever they may be, to know that they can speak to someone and that they will be listened to in confidence. If that person is the Armed Forces commissioner and one of his or her responsibilities in the Bill is whistleblowing, that is fine. It seems to me that we cannot do too much to reassure our Armed Forces personnel.

I just want to reinforce the noble Baroness’s point about speaking in confidence. We need to get this point about anonymity across to people. Something that, I hope, comes across from the noble Baroness’s amendment, my response and the comments of others in the Committee is that people can do this in confidence or anonymously if they wish to come forward. That is a really important point.

I am grateful to the Minister. All I shall say in conclusion is that there is an opportunity here to provide another vent, shaft or conduit, which could provide immediate help to someone—we know not where—who, at this moment, is feeling insecure and uncertain as to what to do. If we pass a Bill creating an Armed Forces commissioner and enabling them to deal with whistleblowing, it is a public, tangible representation by the MoD of its willingness and desire to do its level best. In the circumstances, I would very much appreciate discussing this further with the Minister, but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 16 withdrawn.

Amendment 17

Moved by

17: Clause 4, page 5, line 22, at end insert— “(aa) the report must include the Commissioner’s view on whether the relevant general service welfare issue has had, or may have, an effect on the recruitment and retention of armed forces personnel,”

My Lords, Amendment 17 is in the name of my noble friend Lady Goldie, and I have signed it. I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich for his support for it. Amendment 17 would require the commissioner to include their view of the impact of general service welfare issues on recruitment and retention in any report published under new Section 340LA: “general service welfare investigations”. This amendment delivers a vital expansion of the requirements set out in the Bill as drafted. Currently, the Bill requires reports published under new Section 340LA only to list the individual findings of an investigation and the reasons for the commissioner’s findings. Recruitment and retention are one of the most significant, if not the greatest, challenges that our Armed Forces face today. Frequent reports of poor-quality accommodation and shocking welfare issues are having an impact on service personnel well-being, and welfare issues are often cited by those personnel leaving our Armed Forces as a reason for their decision to leave, as I know only too well. The damaging publicity that these welfare issues cause is surely also having a detrimental effect on the number of people who are coming forward to start a career in our Armed Forces. The latest figures show that 12,850 people joined the Regular Forces last calendar year and that 14,830 people left, meaning a net decrease in the size of the Regular Forces of 1,980. If the new Armed Forces commissioner is to be effective in resolving welfare issues—and, in so doing, contributing to the strength of our Armed Forces—they must put recruitment and retention both front and centre. Given that new Section 340LA grants the commissioner the discretion to produce the report or not, we feel that this additional duty to address recruitment and retention in those reports is not an overburdensome requirement. Ensuring recruitment and retention are addressed is of sufficient importance to warrant inclusion in these reports. I beg to move.

My Lords, I agree with much of what the noble Earl said, but this seems a rather strange amendment. In my view, it is axiomatic that the work of the Armed Forces commissioner, and the issues that he or she addresses, may have an effect on recruitment and retention in every instance—so that goes without saying—but I am not at all clear how the Armed Forces commissioner will determine whether they have an actual effect. It does not seem to be something that the Armed Forces commissioner can practically fulfil in the sense of the noble Earl’s amendment. I entirely endorse the sentiment behind it, but I simply do not see that it adds anything to the Bill.

My Lords, in the absence of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, I feel it might be useful if I made some comments on her Amendment 18. I have not discussed this with her so, for the avoidance of doubt, I am in no way speaking for her. This is an interesting and useful amendment to discuss, particularly in Committee. Clause 4(3) says that, after the commissioner has conducted an inquiry, they are required to offer a report. The amendment proposes that the commissioner should make an annual report on the work done to improve the welfare of service personnel and public awareness of the issues. The idea of an annual report is interesting. I am not entirely wedded to the word “annual”—

16:45:00

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

16:54:00

My Lords, although 10 minutes have not quite elapsed, I think that everybody who was in the Room before we adjourned is back in the Room. We might just take advantage of a few minutes before the next Division is called to continue—it will be called very shortly. Would the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, like to resume?

I thank the noble Baroness very much. I did not have any written notes, so I shall do my best to continue seamlessly. I think I was commenting on the way in which the public and Parliament know what the commissioner is doing, and there are a couple of elements in this amendment that are particularly relevant. The general point is that, if the commissioner is holding an inquiry on a particular subject, that may indeed take quite a significant period of time. There are issues that are being resolved that do not necessarily deserve a stand-alone report on a particular subject—but do we have a sense of what issues are being addressed and how the commissioner is working? In particular, we can look at proposed new Section 340OA(1)(c) in this amendment, on “the resources used by the Commissioner in fulfilling its functions, and any further resources required”. It is important that Parliament and the public have a sense that the commissioner has a vehicle by which they can say, “X number of extra issues have been raised with me, but I only have the resources to do this number of things”. So it is useful at this stage perhaps to regard this as a probing amendment. I am very interested in whether the Minister can comment on Clause 4(3) on page 5, which I referred to. It talks about an investigation and a report, but how are we going to know what the commissioner is doing in a general sense and get a general picture of their work? How do Parliament and the public know that? I think that is what this amendment seeks to address.

I thank the noble Earl, Lord Minto, for introducing these amendments. I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, here and note her apologies but also her sterling efforts to get here despite the broken rail. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for stepping in. The noble Earl is right to point out the challenges on recruitment and retention, and the Government are taking a number of steps to try to deal with those outside the remit of the Bill. We can go through all those, on pay, how the childcare arrangements have changed and the change to the recruiting system—there will be a new system from 2027 that will bring the three services together. All those sorts of changes are trying to improve the recruitment process. On the retention aspects of it, we hope and expect that the general welfare investigations and work that the commissioner does may help to address some of the other points that the noble Earl made with respect to their impact. But I take the point from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup: of course the commissioner can look at recruitment and retention if she or he believes them to be of a general welfare concern. Whether they do or not is an open debate, but we are taking other measures outside this Bill to deal with that issue, and we hope that we can address that in the way we want.

16:58:00

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

17:08:00

My Lords, to return to my remarks, I had thanked the noble Earl, Lord Minto, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, for their contributions to the debate. I welcomed the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, on her arrival and congratulated her on her perseverance. I was just in the process of making a couple of remarks about the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, made in speaking to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. I will deal with this further in my formal remarks, but the most important thing I can say to the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Smith, is: look closely at Clause 4(4), which deals with the annual report to which the amendment specifically refers. Public awareness of that, its presentation before Parliament and so on are important, but thematic reports are allowed or contained within the legislation under Clause 4(3), and these again would be laid before Parliament. It is important for us to record that the Bill provides not only for annual reports—they speak for themselves, and they can contain all sorts of recommendations and refer to the thematic reports that the commissioner may or may not have made during the year—but specifically for a number of thematic reports on whatever they choose. It is important to recognise those two different avenues by which various information can be conveyed to Parliament about the commissioner’s work, which is why I referred to that. I thank the noble Baronesses for their amendments and for highlighting the importance of improving retention in the Armed Forces. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Minto, for his helpful introduction. As I mentioned previously, we know that forces personnel have cited the impact of service life on their families and personal life as the leading factor influencing their decision to leave the service. That is the very reason we have brought forward this Bill: if, by shining a light on welfare matters that affect the quality of service life, we can get after those matters, it should follow that fewer of our personnel will feel compelled to leave for those reasons. As I have said before, there is nothing in the Bill as it stands to preclude the commissioner from dedicating one or more thematic investigations, and therefore reports, to retention, if they consider it to be a general service welfare matter. In addition, if retention is relevant to their findings or recommendations for another investigation that they have carried out, there is also nothing to preclude the commissioner from including it in that report as well. However, it is vital to ensure the independence of the commissioner and it should be for them to exercise their discretion and autonomy in deciding on the exact content of their thematic reports. I turn to Amendment 18, regarding the commissioner’s annual report. The Government’s intention with the establishment of the Armed Forces commissioner role is to increase transparency and accountability. The annual report will be an independent report to Parliament on the state of welfare in the forces and what we must or should do to improve our offer to those who serve. The existing legislation for the Service Complaints Ombudsman sets out their functions and requirements. This includes the production of an annual report, which must contain anything that the current ombudsman thinks appropriate to the exercise of their functions for that year. Clause 2 of the Bill transfers the functions of the ombudsman to the commissioner and Clause 4(4), as I already mentioned, makes the necessary tweaks to their existing annual reporting requirements to ensure that they also include the commissioner’s new functions under the Bill. The commissioner therefore still has to produce an annual report, and it must be laid before Parliament. In the other place, the Secretary of State stated his intention that a debate on that report becomes a regular part of the parliamentary calendar each year. I hope that this promise to make the annual report a key part of parliamentary business is one of the ways of demonstrating how seriously both the Secretary of State and I already take the findings of the commissioner. The commissioner will be in a unique and unprecedented position to take a holistic view of the range of issues faced by service personnel and their families. Their position as an independent champion for our Armed Forces will allow them to bring to the attention of Parliament and the public a range of issues faced by service personnel. To overly define what should be in the scope of the annual report may undermine their independence. The Secretary of State will remove any material in a report that they consider is against the interests of national security or that might jeopardise someone’s personal safety. There will be stringent safeguards as part of this review process to ensure that the Secretary of State’s remit for redactions is limited to these categories. Furthermore, the Secretary of State will have only 30 sitting days from receipt to lay thematic reports before Parliament. A 30-day limit for an annual report that could be hundreds of pages long may be challenging, if we are to provide the appropriate level of national security and personal safety checks necessary in this context. The report, however, will be laid before Parliament as soon as practicable. By convention, it is common practice for the Government to respond to the recommendations of independent commissioners or ombudsmen, but I note the desire of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, to see this more clearly spelled out in legislation. With regards to a response being required within three calendar months, I share the noble Baroness’s desire to ensure that the Government respond in a timely manner; however, this may prove to be an unrealistic timeframe. The recommendations would be unknown and likely to require a substantive amount of consideration by the department. The three-month deadline is likely to lead only to a very high-level response, rather than to the more considered response that we would like. I hope this provides some reassurance to the noble Baroness and the noble Earl. On these grounds, I ask him to withdraw his amendment.

17:15:00

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who spoke on this group, in particular the Minister. I thought that what he said was really clear and comforting. I quite take the point made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, about it being axiomatic that recruitment and retention are part of the purpose here, but they are important enough to get proper focus. On Amendment 17, therefore, we hope that the Minister has listened to our argument for recruitment and retention to be addressed directly here. It is of course our duty to seek the resolution of welfare issues faced by our service personnel for its own sake, but we should also be acutely aware of the impact that service conditions have on all of our hard-working Armed Forces. I turn to Amendment 18 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham. We absolutely support the spirit of this amendment, as well as the need for proper transparency and oversight of the commissioner. As I say, it was very comforting to hear the comprehensive assurances from the Minister, in which case I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.

Amendment 17 withdrawn.

Amendment 18 not moved.

Clause 4 agreed.

Amendment 19

Tabled by

19: After Clause 4, insert the following new Clause— “Report: Commissioner’s interaction with the Service Police Complaints Commissioner(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish a report on the interaction between the roles of the Armed Forces Commissioner and the Service Police Complaints Commissioner.(2) The report under subsection (1) must be laid before Parliament.”

My Lords, this amendment would require the commissioner to report on their interaction with the Service Police Complaints Commissioner. It appears to me that there may be some degree of overlap between the roles of the Armed Forces commissioner and the Service Police Complaints Commissioner. Given the important role that the Service Police Complaints Commissioner plays in making recommendations on service police issues faced by persons subject to service law, it is important to understand how the two commissioners will work together and share appropriate information. It will clearly be unacceptable for one commissioner to tackle an issue relating to service police issues that touch on the welfare of service personnel without the understanding of—and those findings being shared with—the other commissioner. Commissioners have previously been shown to be effective in a number of other sectors, but it is crucial that commissioners with complementary areas of work are not siloed from each other so that lessons can be learned as quickly as possible across the whole sector, to the benefit of all those who are subject to service law. Clearly, there will be some work that cannot be shared immediately due to its sensitive nature—I completely understand that—but it is crucial that what can be shared is shared, which is why we are proposing this new duty. I beg to move.

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 20 in the name of my noble friend Lord Hay of Ballyore, which I have signed. My noble friend apologises for his absence, as he is attending his son’s wedding this week. This is an important Bill, and one that I broadly support, as it will give greater support to serving personnel and their families. However, I believe that it is only right and proper that veterans who have devoted their lives bravely to supporting their country should be afforded the same protection as serving personnel and their families. It seems strange to me that, while the independent Armed Forces commissioner will have statutory powers throughout the United Kingdom, the veterans’ commissioners for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have no such statutory powers. They are employed on only a part-time basis, with limited staff. Having said that, I have to say that all the veterans’ commissioners, within their remit, deliver an excellent service to veterans. The proposed new clause is about how we engage in a meaningful way in our veterans’ needs and develop a close relationship between the veterans’ commissioners and the Armed Forces commissioner, as many of the issues they face may be of a similar nature and cross-cutting. Today, our Armed Forces veterans continue to need support for housing, employment and vital public services such as improved healthcare. Amendment 20 would have the effect of making provisions for the commissioner to hold regular meetings with the veterans’ commissioners across the country, where they could discuss specific matters pertaining to their area of the United Kingdom. This would allow the commissioner to be well briefed on the needs of each region. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have their own devolved Administrations, so the Armed Forces covenant, for example, may be administered in slightly different ways. It is important that the Armed Forces commissioner is aware of these difficulties. In Northern Ireland, the implementation of the covenant is solely the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Executive and their agencies. Unlike in Scotland and Wales, local councils in Northern Ireland have no role in the provision of housing, health, adult social care or children’s services, which fall to the various agencies. In many parts of England, Scotland and Wales, members of the Armed Forces who have urgent housing needs are given high priority and are not required to show a local connection to be offered suitable accommodation. However, in Northern Ireland, social housing is provided solely on a points basis, regulated by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, which is prevented by legislation from giving priority to Armed Forces personnel. The lack of a local connection will result in fewer points being awarded to them and, as a result, the applicant will not reach the required quota for the allocation of social housing. This is only one illustration of the differences that exist between regions. The Armed Forces commissioner would benefit greatly by having meetings with the three veterans’ commissioners, at least once a year, to be made fully aware of the diversity between the nations. It is also essential that the Armed Forces commissioner is in close contact with the assemblies and their connected agencies. It is therefore important that there is co-ordination throughout the United Kingdom and that the commissioner is made fully aware of the problems that are specific to the veterans of the different areas. Unfortunately, in the Bill as it stands, the Armed Forces commissioner has no remit to represent veterans. The proposed new clause in Amendment 20 would permit engagement between the Armed Forces commissioner and the veterans’ commissioners and would go some way to delivering an effective service for our serving personnel and their families. The primary aim of the amendment is to co-ordinate to address the needs of serving personnel and veterans right across the United Kingdom and it would go some way to improving the service afforded to both. Finally, can the Minister say whether the veterans’ commissioners have been consulted on this Bill? If so, have they expressed any opinion about holding meetings with the Armed Forces commissioner? Do the three veterans’ commissioners hold joint meetings between themselves to understand the difficulties that they may have? Can the Minister assure me that the Veterans Minister will have a major role in co-ordinating all this?

My Lords, my general remarks will answer the various questions posed by the noble Earl, Lord Minto, and the noble Lord, Lord Browne. I thank both for the way they introduced their amendments and the very important points they raised, which are worthy of consideration. Amendments 19 and 25, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, concern the Armed Forces commissioner’s interaction with the Service Police Complaints Commissioner. The Service Police Complaints Commissioner has a duty to secure, maintain and review arrangements for the procedures that deal with complaints, conduct matters, and death and serious injury matters. It is independent from the service police and the MoD. I bring noble Lords’ attention to the fact that there is no overlap between the Service Police Complaints Commissioner and the Armed Forces commissioner. Indeed, they both have an entirely different focus: the Armed Forces commissioner is focused on the general service welfare of our Armed Forces and their families; the Service Police Complaints Commissioner provides oversight of the service police complaints process to raise standards in service policing and secure trust and confidence in the service police complaints system. The SPCC’s role is similar to the Independent Office for Police Conduct, which is the police complaints watchdog for England and Wales. It is responsible for investigating the most serious complaints and conduct matters involving the police and sets the standards by which the police should handle complaints. Turning to engagement between the commissioners, as the Armed Forces commissioner and the Service Police Complaints Commissioner are both independent, it will ultimately be up to them to decide how they choose to exercise their powers to work together effectively. It is likely that the commissioner will implement a series of formal and informal working arrangements with various groups, organisations and committees, including—importantly for the amendments in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and the noble Earl, Lord Minto—the Service Police Complaints Commissioner. Creating a legal obligation on the Secretary of State to publish a report within six months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent—as per the noble Baroness’s Amendment 19—would likely prove to be unrealistic. With an office of this scale and importance, it will likely take time for the commissioner to develop the necessary processes and to undertake the breadth of engagement outlined previously. I hope this provides the necessary reassurance to the noble Baroness—as well as the noble Earl—without needing to specify details of engagement in the Bill. On these grounds, I ask her to withdraw her amendment at the appropriate time. Before I continue, I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, to the Committee’s proceedings. Her knowledge and experience as Victims’ Commissioner are welcome, so we are very pleased to see her here. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Browne, for introducing Amendment 20, after Clause 5 and on veterans’ commissioners. It is in his name, as well as that of the noble Lord, Lord Hay, and we completely understand why he is not present with us. The noble Lord, Lord Browne, sought a requirement for the Armed Forces commissioner to engage with the veterans’ commissioners.

17:30:00

Our manifesto commitment to establish the commissioner was clear in its aim to address the gap in support and advocacy for our serving personnel. The Bill therefore has a specific focus on supporting serving personnel and their families, and ensuring that they have an independent voice to hold the Government and others responsible for our Armed Forces to account.

As an independent office, it will be for the Armed Forces commissioner to determine with whom they wish to engage in fulfilling their duties. While the commissioner’s remit does not include veterans, I fully expect—and this goes to the heart of the amendment that was moved—that veterans’ commissioners and others within the wider Armed Forces community will be among those with whom the new commissioner wishes to engage. I hope that gives the noble Lord some reassurance that we would expect the Armed Forces commissioner to interact with the various veterans’ commissioners, as appropriate.

To his point, of course the Veterans Minister, as the responsible Minister, will look at how all this is working and the interaction between them all. I am sure that the various veterans’ commissioners, in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, will regularly be in contact with each other. That interaction would have the Government’s support, but we do not believe that it is necessary to specify in the legislation the specific stakeholder engagement that should be undertaken by the commissioner. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Browne, has heard my point about the importance of that interaction in ensuring that their views are taken into account.

Our manifesto commitment to support veterans and the wider Armed Forces community is being delivered through a range of other initiatives, such as the introduction of ID cards, and through our pledge to extend the Armed Forces covenant legal duty further in law. I appreciate the point that the noble Lord, Lord Browne, made on that and Northern Ireland.

I hope this provides the necessary reassurance to noble Lords that, while the Bill will not specify details of engagement requirements, no doubt the new Armed Forces commissioner will wish to consider the important points that noble Lords made when they undertake their duties. On those grounds, I ask the noble Earl to withdraw his amendment.

My Lords, I again thank noble Lords, particularly the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Browne, who made some extremely valid points. I am going to be pretty brief, because the clarification, definition and scope of both the independent commissioners were extremely clear and simple. The point about veterans was very well made; they are, of course, considered extremely highly within the Armed Forces community, so it is very important that they get the amount of attention that they do. Having said that, on issues about the Government’s plans for the implementation of the Bill, it must be a laudable aim to get as much clarity as we possibly can into this. However, having heard what the Minister said and his carefully considered views on the importance of clarity within this, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 19 withdrawn.

Clause 5 agreed.

Amendment 20

Tabled by

20: After Clause 5, insert the following new Clause— “Engagement with the Veterans’ Commissioners(1) In carrying out their functions under this Act, the Armed Forces Commissioner must regularly consult with the Veterans’ Commissioners for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.(2) Engagement with the Veterans’ Commissioners under subsection (1) must have the primary aim of coordinating to address the needs of serving members of the Armed Forces and veterans across the United Kingdom.”

My Lords, I pay tribute to the role that the Armed Forces have played in Northern Ireland in bringing about the peace process—I should have said that before. I listened carefully to the Minister, for whom I have great respect, and I know that the Government are committed to strengthening support for the entire forces, so I am pleased that there will be a co-ordinated approach among all the commissioners. Having said that, I do not wish to move by amendment.

Amendment 20 not moved.

Amendment 21 not moved.

Amendment 21A

Moved by

21A: After Clause 5, insert the following new Clause— “Duty to consider the lived experience of Reserve Service PersonnelIn carrying out their functions under this Act, the Armed Forces Commissioner must give equal consideration to the lived experience of Reserve Service Personnel and Regular Service Personnel.”

My Lords, in moving Amendment 21A, I shall also speak to Amendment 21B in my name. In so doing, I declare my interest as a serving Coldstream Guards Army Reserve officer with the 1st Battalion London Guards. I mention this not only because it is my duty to do so in declaring one’s interests but because the London Guards are one of the few good-news stories in the Army Reserve. We are one of the only infantry battalions that is growing. Our partnership with our regular counterparts in the Household Division uniquely positions us for recruitment and retention by offering a dual role: ceremonial duties and contribution to the field Army’s war-fighting capabilities. I should also say that I have the honour to serve alongside the present doorkeeper, Mr Davey—he is not in his place—who, after a distinguished career in the regular Army, now fulfils an essential combat service support role for the battalion on top of his duties to this House. But I know from attending courses and battle camps with reservists from other infantry formations that the picture is not so positive outside London. This is not to say that we do not face challenges, and there is a feeling that the battalion works well because of the tireless work of individuals up and down the chain of command, bolstered by permanent staff who go above and beyond the call of duty—that is to say, the battalion works in spite of the system, not because of it. Reserve forces are a vital component of the Armed Forces, providing essential mass, unique capabilities and a diversity of skills that are critical to meeting the Ministry of Defence’s commitments. At the Reserve Forces’ and Cadets’ Associations conference in November 2024, the Minister for Veterans and People, Alistair Carns MP, delivered the keynote address, focusing on the critical importance of reconnecting defence with society. He praised the contributions of reservists and cadets, noting their significant role in bolstering the UK’s operational capabilities and enhancing social mobility. He said: “Reserves and cadets are the beating heart of our defence capabilities, offering unparalleled skills and serving as a bridge between the military and the communities they protect. Their commitment ensures that defence is not only ready for today’s challenges but also resilient for the future”. At the same conference, the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen—a former Defence Secretary and former NATO Secretary-General—reinforced the significance of strong community ties in defence efforts, particularly in the face of escalating global threats. He underscored the unique value of the RFCA network in enhancing public understanding and support for the Armed Forces, commenting: “The role of reserves and cadets has never been more crucial. They exemplify the spirit of service and commitment that underpins our national security. Their efforts strengthen the bond between defence and society, ensuring we are prepared for any challenge”. I know that the Minister has a personal connection to the Army Reserve, with his son-in-law serving with the Mercians. In the past, including at the Second Reading of this Bill, the Minister has offered his wholehearted support for our nation’s Reserve Forces. Yet, despite strong words of support from both Ministers and the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, the reserves are absent from this Bill. It is unclear how the Armed Forces commissioner will effect positive change for the vital work that reservists do and may be called on to do in the future. This is the situation when considering the reserve estate of buildings and infrastructure: it is at best tired and often not fit for purpose, with too many assets—kitchens, ablutions and boilers—condemned. On training, courses are hard to get on, too long and not available enough. Access to the training estate remains a challenge and funding for some courses is inconsistent. Equipment platforms are of very limited availability, with no viable equipment support to manage training demand. JAMES, the Joint Asset Management and Engineering Solutions platform—it consists of a range of tools for the capability management of military equipment parts—does not work well for the Army Reserve. On pay and welfare, there are frustrations with the normal retirement age of 55 and perceptions around the over age extension. Pay remains an issue and is not reflective of reservist civilian employment, meaning that they often have to take pay cuts in order to miss work for training. There is also a feeling that remuneration does not compensate for time away from family. That list is not exhaustive, but these are some factors that severely hamper the reserves’ ability to recruit and retain and which impede their operational effectiveness. Therefore, my Amendment 21A would give a duty to consider the “lived experience of Reserve Service Personnel” so that, in carrying out their functions under this legislation, the Armed Forces commissioner would have to give equal consideration to the lived experience of reserve and regular service personnel. The amendment aims to empower the Armed Forces commissioner to ensure equal treatment of Reserve Forces in terms of resources and respect, thus enabling them to fulfil UK plc’s defence requirements and commitments. Under my Amendment 21B, on the duty to consult the heads of reserves in carrying out their functions under this legislation, the Armed Forces commissioner would have to consult the heads of the Army, Royal Navy and Royal Air Force reserves before implementing any changes that would affect reserve service personnel. Policymakers too often impose policy on reserves instead of collaborating with them, resulting in unintended consequences and unsatisfactory outcomes. This amendment would ensure that policymakers create and implement policy affecting reserves collaboratively, maximising the chance of success. I look forward to the contributions from other noble Lords and the Minister’s response. I beg to move.

My Lords, I support this amendment. As the noble Lord has outlined, the Reserve Forces are an important part of our defence effort. There was possibly an image, going back to the 1970s and 1980s, that they were about weekend soldiers and drinking clubs. They are far from that today. If you look at the deployments in Afghanistan and Iraq, for example, you can see that the number of reservists deployed either as formed units or individuals made a tremendous effort. Certainly, the medical services saved the lives of countless members of our Armed Forces in both theatres; that could not have been done without reserve medical services. Those forces are unique because, when they are on such deployments, they do not deploy back to a formed unit. As the noble Lord said, they have their unit, but it can be a very lonely existence for some of those individuals when they deploy back. I certainly know that, when I was in the Ministry of Defence and talking to reservists, the issue of mental health was one that particularly concerned me. In a regular unit, there is a welfare structure around them, but the individual who goes back to their individual work or home can feel very isolated. I came across some terrible examples where individuals who were severely wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan were forgotten by the welfare system. I think that things changed—we put things in place—but it is important to remember that these individuals are fighting on behalf of and alongside regular individuals. However, they do not fit neatly into the category that this Bill outlines. As the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, said, reserves may well come across employment issues, discrimination in employment and other issues that affect regular forces, but they do not necessarily fit in there. If we somehow forget about them as the Bill goes through, that will be remiss of us. We will have to wait and see what the outcome of the defence review is, but there will possibly be a larger role for reserve services—particularly because, these days, the Armed Forces across the piece, whether the Navy, the RAF or the Army, have become much more specialised. Some of the skills used in civilian life are very sought after in our military today. If we are going to attract those people, we should make sure not only that the offer is attractive in terms of both remuneration and the experience that they will get but that, if things go wrong, they have support as well.

17:45:00

The noble Lord mentioned the estate; that is a sore point with me. I tried to attack it—I use “attack” because it is the right word—because it is, as he said, very poor. There is too much of it, and some rationalisation could be done to make it better. However, the issue that the new Armed Forces commissioner will face—remembering that that individual will not necessarily have an Armed Forces background—is that they will not necessarily understand the difference between regular forces and the unique role that the reservists play. If they have, as I say, the old-fashioned notion that these are just weekend warriors or that it is a drinking club, that would be unfortunate because that is certainly not what the Reserve Forces are today; they have not been so for many years.

So, this amendment needs to be reflected on by the Minister in terms of how we can knit it into the overall responsibilities of the Armed Forces commissioner. Without it, a whole group of people who are vital to our defence effort could miss out.

My Lords, I am in favour of Amendment 21A in the name of my noble friend Lord Harlech, to which I have added my name. At Second Reading, I asked a question of the Minister regarding when reserves would come under the remit of the Bill. My question was supported by my noble friend Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton; sadly, he is not here today because he is with NATO in Moldova. The Minister was extremely generous with his time and subsequently gave me sight of a briefing note, which goes through in considerable detail the points that I wanted him to address; I am most grateful for that. However, the last paragraph of his briefing note brings me to the point of this particular question. It is entitled: “How will the reserves find out about the commissioner?” It goes on: “During implementation, we are committed to ensuring the voices of reservists in scope of the commissioner are heard and their unique experiences and challenges are fully considered. We will actively engage with relevant reservists to ensure their welfare needs are effectively addressed, and that they are aware of the commissioner”. Can the Minister reflect on that and see whether he cannot provide a form of words that would give us all comfort that, in fact, reservists will be made aware from day one of how they can access the commissioner? Can he also put that in the context of our debate earlier this afternoon, with particular reference to whistleblowing; and imagine what it would be like for someone who finds themselves, almost on day one, in a position where they need to access the commissioner? How would they do that? I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

My Lords, I, too, support these amendments. Much of what I would have liked to say has already been said, but the importance that is attached both to reserves and to the contribution they make to the regular forces will, as we go forward, grow more and more. It may well appear in the defence review as one of those key steps that are being taken. If it is, and even if it is not, I still believe that the recognition of the work of the Reserve Forces, right in the middle of the regular forces, needs to be recognised in this particular way. It would be invidious to leave the Reserve Forces outside, as it were, the responsibility of the commissioner.

My Lords, I support these amendments from these Benches. I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, felt inspired to stand up and speak on the first day in Committee and that he has now brought forward these two amendments. On reading the Bill, my assumption was that it included regulars and reservists, but the very fact that these questions are being asked means that it would be very helpful if the Minister could clarify the intention of His Majesty’s Government and, perhaps, think about some minor amendments to the wording of the Bill for clarity. Some of the amendments we brought forward last week, for example about funding, might look rather different depending on whether we are looking at a commissioner whose remit is, in essence, to deal with regulars or one who deals with reservists, because the sheer numbers are different and some of the concerns might be different. If we are looking at funding the commissioner, and his or her sub-commissioners or deputy commissioners as outlined in the Bill, it would be very useful to be absolutely clear that we are covering reservists as well as regulars, which I assume is the Government’s intention but which is not entirely clear. Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, mentioned cadets, which also came up in discussions last week. I assume they do not fall within the Bill’s remit because they are not subject to service law, but are there ways in which they, too, would be in scope?

My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lord Harlech for tabling Amendments 21A and 21B, which seek to ensure that the commissioner prioritises the interests of the reserves appropriately. My noble friend has brought some excellent expertise to this issue as a serving reserve officer himself. The importance of the reserves within the overall Armed Forces is undeniable; their critical role is both admired and valued by all. As the Minister will no doubt tell us, reserves will have recourse to the commissioner because they are subject to service law when in training and on active duty. That said, my noble friend is seeking to make a broader point that the commissioner should consider the interests and experiences of the reserves equally to those of regular personnel. We support him in his desire to ensure that our reserve units are prioritised appropriately.

My Lords, once again I thank the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, for tabling these amendments, which allow us to discuss the issue of reserves. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, yes, reserves are covered and are within scope of the Bill when they are subject to service law. I have made that point on a number of occasions, but I say it again so that we are absolutely clear of the fact and have no misunderstanding. I need to declare an interest as, like the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, my son-in-law is an active reservist. I have to be careful about that because, as noble Lords can imagine, he is not without an opinion about certain things—nor indeed is the rest of the family—so I put that on the record. He was active in Iraq. My noble friend pointed out the service of reservists in these campaigns, and my son-in-law was one of them. We all know people who are, were or will be reserves. The Bill does not cover cadets, as the noble Baroness pointed out, although they are of course a major policy issue, as well as a major source of pride for us all. We hope that they both develop and expand. I will respond to a few of the points made before I make my formal reply.

Having read the Bill, I know that the Minister is right: the reservists are covered while they are under service law. But what about individuals who are not on active service but who, for example, are affected by mental health problems or injuries they have sustained, and find it difficult to get redress for those things, which are a result of their service? How would that be covered? Would the commissioner be able to look at those individuals, who might not be active at the time but are still reservists? I can give examples of individuals like that who have sat at home for long periods of time, who are not active but were ignored by the system.

The answer to that is yes. I say to my noble friend, as I would to any noble Lord, that if there are instances of anything like that, he should bring them to my attention. I cannot always promise an answer, but I will always ensure that things are looked into. If my noble friend has something he wants me to look at, of course I will do so.

I am sorry to press the point. My noble friend the Minister said, “Yes”, but can he clarify that? This is important. The Bill says that they are covered by service law. If an individual, for example, has been on operations, has mental health problems, and has been detached from his unit for a while and is trying to get help, he is not technically covered by service law in those situations. Would he or she still be able to go to the commissioner and say, “Wait, we are not getting treatment or support in the way that we deserve”?

My understanding is that, in that situation, the issue arose as a consequence of service law. If that is wrong, I will clarify the position in a letter, and I will copy in all noble Lords in the Committee. My understanding is that, because the issue arose when they were subject to service law, the commissioner could therefore still look at it. It would be remiss of me not to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, on his own service. He mentioned Mr Davey, whom I acknowledge as well. There will be many other people whom we all know and who deserve congratulations and respect for their service. I ask the noble Lord to pass on the thanks of all noble Lords in this Committee to his unit, which, as he pointed out, has done particularly well. I also thank him for his speech and the various points he made in it, which were very good. The importance of what he said is not only shown in the answers he receives; it is in the fact that people will have heard his comments and the opinions he expressed. That also influences opinion in a way that is not always obvious, so he should take great credit for that. It is self-evident that we must consider the needs of reservists, but that is not always said as loudly and clearly as it should be, so the noble Lord taking the opportunity to do so when speaking to his amendments is extremely important. My noble friend Lord Beamish outlined, in support of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, the importance of reservists and the even greater role that, potentially, they may be asked to play in future. We will see what happens with that. My noble friend pointing out the importance of reservists is extremely welcome. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Colgrain, for the point he made about our dialogue and interaction on reservists and when they would be subject to service law. On the engagement point and the comments that he read out, we are actively considering how we would do that. I imagine that that would be through surveys and visits and by talking to individual reservists and their units about their needs, requirements and concerns. It is not necessarily for me to lay out to the commissioner exactly how to do that, but that is how I would expect a commissioner to work to ensure that the views and opinions of reservists were gleaned. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, pointed out the importance of veterans, the centrality of their commitment and their importance to the regulars, with whom they often train and serve side by side. He will know of that importance better than most of us, from his own military background and experience. He, too, was right to point out the importance of reservists. I have already answered the questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, on whether reservists are included in the scope of the Bill. I turn to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, on the Armed Forces commissioner’s consideration of and consultation with reserves. As I said, our Armed Forces reserves play a vital role in supporting our national security, and we recognise their dedication and value their work and well-being, showing them the same high regard as our regular service personnel. The contribution, skills and commitment of our reserves are essential to our operational strength, and I believe that every Member of the Committee would agree with that. As I said before, I hope that the noble Lord can pass that on to his friends and colleagues. It is for that reason that reserves are within the scope of the new commissioner. As with regular members of the Armed Forces, members of the reserves will be able to contact the commissioner at any point about general service welfare matters that have arisen in connection with their service, and have those issues considered. That was the point I made to my noble friend Lord Beamish: they can contact the commissioner at any point about general service welfare matters that have arisen in connection with their service. That goes to the point that my noble friend rightly raised.

18:00:00

As we move forward with the Bill and its implementation, we are committed to ensuring that the voices of reservists are heard and that their unique experiences and challenges are fully considered. I go back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Colgrain: we will actively engage with reservists to ensure that their welfare needs are effectively addressed. As I said, that may be through visits, surveys or other means, but the intention is for this to be active—not just a passive “We will consult”. We want to try to make this a reality.

For those reasons, in my view, it is not necessary to create a legal obligation on the Armed Forces commissioner to give equal consideration when carrying out their functions to reserves, as they are already at the heart of the Bill and of our much-valued regular Armed Forces.

The second proposed new clause would create a further legal obligation on the commissioner to consult with the heads of the Army, Royal Navy and Royal Air Force reserves before implementing any changes that will affect reserve service personnel. First, I want to clarify that this new clause is unnecessary as the commissioner will make recommendations but the responsibility for agreeing and implementing any changes that may affect reserves will sit with Ministers. I hope that that is a helpful clarification for the noble Lord.

In any event, we anticipate that the commissioner will wish to work closely with a number of officials, including those in reserves. As the commissioner will be independent, it will ultimately be up to them to decide how they choose to exercise their powers and work with stakeholders, both internal and external to the MoD. The commissioner’s independence is of the upmost importance, and we do not necessarily want to restrict it. It is likely that the commissioner will implement a series of formal and informal working arrangements with various groups, organisations, committees and officials, including reserves; again, that goes back to the point from the noble Lord, Lord Colgrain. We are very cognisant of the fact that we need to do this.

I hope that, with those comments—both the formal comments that I have made and the reassurances that I have given to the Committee in response to noble Lords’ individual questions and points—the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, will feel able to withdraw or not press his amendments. However, I thank him again for highlighting the reserves and giving us all the opportunity to say how important we feel their contribution is; we respect their duty.

My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister and to all noble Lords who took part in this short but important debate, which encompassed both the importance of the Reserve Forces and just some of the challenges that they face. When I was a Government Whip and I sat there, it used to snap me when people—usually the person speaking to an amendment—would go round the houses and repeat everything we had just heard. Everyone in this Committee has been here for this group of amendments, so we know what was said and I will do not that. However, let me say that I am grateful for everybody’s contributions; this has been an important group. The Minister gave us an assurance that reserve service personnel will be covered by the Armed Forces commissioner. I just want to pick up on that point. I agree that there must be active communication, as my noble friend Lord Colgrain said, but the Ministry of Defence needs to be very careful in terms of what it thinks is active communication. It might think that sending an email to everyone’s MoDNet email address is communication. I have been in the reserves for six years and I got my MoDNet laptop only two weeks ago, so please do not assume that one pathway and one stream of communication will capture everybody. There needs to be a multifaceted approach to how the roles, responsibilities and rights of reserve forces personnel—as well as how those intertwine with the Armed Forces commissioner—are communicated. With that, I thank noble Lords and beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 21A withdrawn.

Amendment 21B not moved.

Schedule 2: Consequential amendments

Amendment 22

Tabled by

22: Schedule 2, page 12, line 14, leave out from “2000,” to end of line 15 and insert “for “Service Complaints Ombudsman” substitute “Armed Forces Commissioner”.” Member’s explanatory statement This amendment makes the Commissioner subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

My Lords, I hope that I am about to endear myself to the entire Committee. I do not propose to move Amendment 22, with the explanation that the phrase “too clever by half” comes to mind here. This amendment sought to fix what we thought was an omission, only for the Minister to point out—helpfully—that another part of the Bill addresses the omission.

Amendment 22 not moved.

Amendment 23

Moved by

23: Schedule 2, page 14, line 27, at end insert— “21A In section 340N—(a) in subsection (1)—(i) in the words before paragraph (a), after “the communication” insert “(“P”)”;(ii) in each of paragraphs (a) and (b), for “his or her” substitute “P’s”;(iii) in paragraph (b), for “the person” substitute “P”;(iv) in the words after paragraph (b), for “officer” substitute “person”;(b) in subsection (2)—(i) for “officer”, in each place, substitute “person”;(ii) for “by the person” substitute “by P”;(c) in subsection (3)—(i) in the words before paragraph (a), for “officer” substitute “person”; (ii) in each of paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), for “the person” substitute “P”.”Member’s explanatory statement This amendment makes provision that is consequential on clause 3.

My Lords, we see Amendment 23 as a minor and technical amendment, in that it makes provision that is consequential to Clause 3. The purpose of Clause 3 is to ensure that the admissibility decisions—decisions about whether a service complaint is admissible and can be progressed in the first instance—can be made by civilians as well as officers. Clause 3 does this by amending Section 340B of the Armed Forces Act 2006 to specify that a specified person may decide whether a service complaint is admissible, rather than it having to take up officers’ time in every case. We intend that decisions will be made by suitably qualified and trained civil servants. Given that these decisions are procedural in nature, this feels appropriate and is the only minor amendment that we have made to the service complaints system in the Bill. However, Section 340N of the Armed Forces Act 2006 similarly provides for the current Service Complaints Ombudsman to refer certain allegations to be considered as service complaints to an appropriate officer in the single services. The commissioner will absorb these functions from the ombudsman and will therefore be able to refer complaints into the system as well. In drafting the Bill, it was an oversight that we did not include this necessary consequential amendment as a result of Clause 3 to ensure that this change was reflected consistently across the legislation. I say to the noble Baroness and others that the provision was already considered in Clause 3 during the Bill’s passage, and it does not exclude the military. With that, I beg to move.

My Lords, I will take it from the Minister that this is a technical change that is necessary as a consequential. I will not raise further questions.

My Lords, we may be getting near the end of the business, but my work here is not yet done. I thank the Minister for his comments and address my remarks particularly to Amendment 23. The group has indeed been given the title “minor and technical” by the Government, and I know that the Minister has, in good faith, accepted the advice of his officials in that respect. But this amendment makes consequential provision to Clause 3, and it therefore actually makes a substantive change to the process by which complaints are handled—and, crucially, who is responsible. As the Minister outlined, Clause 3 substitutes the words “a person” for “an officer” in Section 340B of the Armed Forces Act 2006. That section outlines the procedure for making a service complaint. Currently, the process begins with a person subject to service law making a complaint to an officer, and that officer then decides whether the complaint is admissible, as per regulations from the Defence Council. If that officer decides that the complaint is not admissible, the person who made the complaint can apply to the Service Complaints Ombudsman for a review, and the ombudsman can then make a decision that is binding on the complainant and the officer to whom the complaint was made. Section 340N sets out the proposal for a referral of an allegation, whereby the ombudsman—soon to be the commissioner—may refer an allegation to the appropriate officer. Clause 3 therefore changes the process for an admissibility decision so that a person subject to service law can make a complaint to a person other than an officer, which could be a civilian or, I presume, someone of any other rank. If that person decides that the complaint is inadmissible, the complainant can appeal to the commissioner. Government Amendment 23 means that the commissioner may refer an allegation to an appropriate person, who could also be a civilian—but what civilian? Is the type of civilian to be further specified in statute, or by statutory instrument? It seems to me that this proposal does not simply alter the language of the 2006 Act to permit a complaint to be made to the commissioner; it also enables a civilian to make an admissibility decision, which can then be referred to the commissioner. That is a major change to the current system, and it begs the question: why would the commissioner need to be able to refer an allegation to a person who is not an officer, and why would a person who is not an officer make a decision about the admissibility of a complaint? The implication is that there will potentially be a civilian in between the person making a complaint and the commissioner, yet the complainant may be content to involve the chain of command. Can the Minister establish whether this is a substantive change to the 2006 Act? Does it mean that civilians could be dealing with allegations referred by the commissioner? If so, does this mean that a civil servant, perhaps, could take over the role of complaints and welfare, as opposed to officers—and, if so, would that not interfere with the chain of command? It appears to me that this amendment, which is no doubt well intended and which may be the consequence of a desire to keep drafting neat, introduces some very real concerns. It is not technical—it goes a lot further than that—and, as I said, could risk interfering with the chain of command. Can the Minister confirm whether this change is intended to grant responsibility to other ranks or civilians in respect of service complaints? For the record, I should say that it is the policy of the Official Opposition that substantive government amendments to Bills should be made not in Grand Committee but on the Floor of the House. Consequently, if this amendment should be shown to be substantive, which I suspect that it is, rather than minor and technical, I would be obliged to object to it today and ask the Minister to bring it to the House on Report so it can be properly scrutinised. Having said that, we want to probe this change and understand it fully, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply. He may wish to consider, depending on what his views are, withdrawing Amendment 23 and using Report to clarify the position—but I am very happy to listen to his comments.

I shall make a couple of points before getting started. The principle of this was accepted when the Committee accepted Clause 3. This change or clarification makes this a technical amendment to make sure that the legislation is consistent with a clause that we have already passed. That is why we talk about it being a technical amendment. It is something that is often done in government legislation, whereby an in-principle change is made but sometimes, when it is fully considered, a drafting error appears or it becomes apparent that there was another piece of legislation that should have been referred to—and this is what was found with respect to this issue. Amendment 23 was brought forward not to change the principle or re-establish any new thoughts but simply to ensure that there is legislative consistency across government with respect to Clause 3, which the Committee had already passed. That was why we proposed it as a minor and technical amendment. I would not have brought forward something to this Committee that was a substantial policy change. The noble Baroness is quite right that that should be discussed in the main Chamber, and I absolutely accept that. Service complaints are never made directly to the commissioner; first, they have to go through the service complaints procedure. The Service Complaints Ombudsman function has been taken on board by the Armed Forces commissioner, but they will not address service complaints; in fact, if there is a service complaint, they will send them back for an admissibility decision. So the service complaints procedure is not impacted in that sense; the Service Complaints Ombudsman function is impacted on.

18:15:00

As regards the specified person, as has been the case before, the specified officer or specified person will be defined in secondary legislation. That procedure happened with the existing definition, and that is the process that will be taken forward with respect to this change if it is to be accepted through the parliamentary process.

The reason we believe the change was needed more generally was that the admissibility decision does not necessarily require the skills or experience specific to military officers. We are not excluding military officers; we are saying that, alongside military officers, you could use civilians for that task. We believe that the service complaints system would be more streamlined by allowing any competent person to deal with the complaint rather than it just having to be a military officer, thereby easing resourcing pressures and delivering better value for money.

Those are some of the answers to the noble Baroness’s points on government Amendment 23. But, as I say, obviously precedent means that, if there is any discontent or opposition in Committee, of course the Government will withdraw their amendment. So with that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 23 withdrawn.

Schedule 2 agreed.

Clause 6: Extent

We come to Amendment 24. The noble Lord, Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton, is not here. Is the amendment not moved? Amendment 24

Moved by

24: Clause 6, page 6, line 24, leave out “, except Gibraltar”

I will move it. I thought the noble Lord had got one of his colleagues to move it, but I will do it on his behalf because I have some sympathies with it. Clause 6 excludes Gibraltar as opposed to the other British Overseas Territories. As a veteran of, I think, every single Armed Forces Act for the last 20 years, I know that this issue comes up every time. I understand—as does the noble Lord, to be fair to him—the unique nature of the Gibraltar regiment. It is a very old regiment; it goes back to 1867. Again, we perhaps think it is just a ceremonial regiment which is seen in Gibraltar itself but, as noble Lords will know, members of the Gibraltar regiment have served in different theatres, including the Balkans, Iraq and Afghanistan, and alongside regular UK forces. They also train with UK forces and are highly thought of by the individuals with whom they deploy. I know this came up during the passage of, I think, the Armed Forces Act 2011, and again, there was a carve-out for Gibraltar. It comes to a point that I know the Minister will make: that it has to be down to the Government of Gibraltar to adopt the Act to include these individuals. But it puts those individuals at a bit of a disadvantage. If I am correct in remembering the various Acts on which I have served over the years, I think the 2011 Act excluded Gibraltar, but subsequently the Government of Gibraltar incorporated that Act, so they are covered by the existing legislation. Is it the intention that, if they are excluded from the agreement of the Armed Forces commissioner, we expect the Government of Gibraltar to adopt this Bill, similarly to what they did with the Armed Forces Act 2011? Without that, it would be wrong to exclude these individuals. As I said, they have deployed with great honour alongside UK forces. The noble Lord, in tabling his amendment, wanted to find out what the intentions of the Government were for the Royal Gibraltar Regiment. We cannot have individuals being deployed alongside members of the regular Armed Forces of the UK without being subject to the same rights that other members will have. I understand that the clause also covers any other overseas territories so, again, I would like to understand what that will mean in terms of difference. I understand the particular nature of Gibraltar, but what will that mean for the other overseas territories’ forces and their ability to use the Armed Forces commissioner for any issues that arise? I beg leave to move the amendment.

My Lords, I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Beamish. This amendment concerns an area of technical expertise that is way beyond my ken—although, when I was a Minister, Gibraltar was raised on numerous occasions in relation to legislation. I am not an expert, but I look forward to what the Minister has to say in response to what seemed to be very significant comments from the noble Lord.

I congratulate my noble friend Lord Beamish for his outstanding realisation that he was moving the amendment and for swiftly jumping to his feet to put forward some very important points. Given that this matter is legal and technical, I shall read out the legal points, because some very important points are contained within them. The relevant piece that we are looking at is the extent points in Clause 6; that is what we are referring to. Although it is very technical and legal, is quite an important part of the Bill. Amendment 24 relates to the application of the Bill to Gibraltar, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, for tabling it and my noble friend Lord Beamish for introducing it. It seeks to include Gibraltar alongside the other British Overseas Territories in the permissive extent clause of the Bill. While I understand that the noble Lord may be concerned about the exclusion of Gibraltar, I shall give him some reassurance. My colleague, the Minister for the Armed Forces, met the Chief Minister of Gibraltar towards the end of last year. He was very welcoming of the Bill and confirmed that he is content to legislate in the Gibraltar Parliament on Armed Forces matters. In this case, UK and Gibraltar officials will now take steps to mirror the UK legislation in Gibraltar law, thereby continuing to demonstrate the close co-operation and collaboration between the UK and Gibraltar on all defence matters. I take this opportunity to thank my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, who has responsibility for the Crown dependencies and overseas territories, for his recent letter to the MoD on these matters, in which he praised the approach of the department and expressed a desire to promote this across government. I reassure the noble Lord and my noble friend Lord Beamish that although the Bill will not extend to Gibraltar, it will still apply to UK service persons subject to service law, and their families, wherever they are in the world. Members of a British Overseas Territories force, including the Royal Gibraltar Regiment, are subject to service law when undertaking any duty or training with UK Armed Forces. That also applies to other overseas territories, as my noble friend mentioned, provided they are subject to service law. It will also apply to UK Armed Forces premises worldwide, provided they fall within the required parameters set out in the Bill. I hope that that is of some reassurance to my noble friend, and I respectfully ask him to withdraw the amendment.

I thank my noble friend for that answer. The only thing I will add about Gibraltar is that things move very slowly. Having been the MoD Minister responsible for Gibraltar, I know that things do not move quickly. The Armed Forces Act 2011 was not signed into Gibraltar law until 2018. If the chief Minister has given a commitment that this will take less time than it took to enact the Armed Forces Act 2011, then, with that and my noble friend’s explanation, it has been worth having this debate. We have had it for every single Armed Forces Bill—certainly that I have been involved in. On behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, who owes me a large drink for moving his amendment, I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment 24 withdrawn.

Clause 6 agreed.

Clause 7: Commencement

Amendment 25 not moved.

Clause 7 agreed.

Clause 8 agreed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Committee adjourned at 6.27 pm.